WHEN YOUR PARENT SPONSORSHIP 2014 APPLICATION REACHED CPC-M? UPDATE HERE...

[screech339]

I will be stealing a spot from someone else who rightfully deserved it more than me who followed by the book. I would deserved to be called these lovely names you list by these actions if I have done that

@ screech,

The program rules as I have said repeatedly are not stated very clearly particularly on the issue of income and this caused confusion to many applicants.The one which has the right to decide and say that some people took it wrong is only CIC.

I think you need to reread the guideline again. When I read it, they spelled out 2010, 2011, 2012 LICO requirements for 2014 application. That is pretty much clear and cut and dried to me. There is no mention anywhere about maybe they will accept 2013 paystubs if you do not meet 2010 licos. I like for you to show me where in the guide that they allow that. I like you to show me how this is causing confusion to many applicants.

The PGP pause occurred in Nov 2011. At that time, I would suspect that you still need to show 2010 NOA to qualify under the old pgp rules. The reintroduction of the new PGP rules still allow those who have 2010 NOA. In other words, they didn't miss out on the opportunity. They only had to wait another 2 years. If you were under the old pgp rules and you didn't meet 2010 lico in 2011 application, you would still have to wait until the following year 2012 to apply again using 2011 NOA. Those that tried to submit 2010 noa not meeting 2010 lico but added 2011 paystubs under the old pgp rules will still get rejected.

 

[ZIDYAY]

Did I strike a nerve with you? I don't have a lot of respect for those who refuses to follow the rules / guidelines in the hope of skipping the line.

Here is a scenario that I think reflects what people who do not meet 2010 LICOs but add 2013 paystubs.

A 18 year old guy walks into a liquor store. He sees the last bottle of 15 year old scotch on the shelf that restocks 5000 bottles once a year. He knows he has to wait until he is 19 next year. He takes it in the hope that the checkout counter doesn't noticed he is underage to buy it. He believes he deserved this bottle as much as everyone else. A 19 year old guy walks in and sees that all 5000 bottles of scotch is gone from the shelf. He is disappointed he knowing he has to wait another year. He goes pick up a bottle of wine and waits at the line at checkout. The 18 year old guy passes the scotch to the cashier. The cashier asked for ID and discovered that he is not old enough to buy it. The cashier takes the scotch away from the 18 year old and accidently dropped it. The bottle shattered on the floor, obviously that it can't be restocked. The 19 year old guy sees all this and gets angry that his potential bottle of scotch was lost.

Have I got this right? Is this a fair comparison? And you want me to apologize to this 18 year old? Notice that the 18 year old guy never made any crime like you made comment about. But he did undermine the process.

I still stick with my argument. I am for fairness for everyone, Canadians and PRs, in getting equal share in getting a spot in the 5000 cap who follow the rules that is laid out in front of them.


Screech,

Thanks for your reply. It is a good try.

I hope I get my point straight and clear this time. Very seldom a sober person gets to settle anything from arguing with a drunkard.

Applicants who submitted pay 2013 pay stubs,employer certificates, bank statements are trying to comply with the requirement of the CIC that failed to say categorically people must not submit 2013 income. They are not intending to violate any rule or law much less "steal" or deprive others of their chance to be included in the quota. In your example, their is deliberate attempt to violate the prohibition against selling liquors to minors. The ordinance is clear; and the way it is to be implemented as well as the corresponding penalties are commonly known.

In the case of PGP sponsorship program, applicants have the right to provide evidence they believe justify them to be considered. And CIC does not forbid anybody from doing that. If CIC sees the justification does not warrant approval, they deny and the application is returned. For you to accuse people of stealing or taking away something from others when they are just giving support and proof to their eligibility is uncalled for and reflective of absolute arrogance. As I have said nobody is being inconvenienced by what they did.

There are applicants who submitted papers with faked signatures. There are those who submitted NOAs complete for three years but are not meeting the income threshold. There are applicants who fill up the forms with gaps in the period of their employment or whereabouts. There are those who submitted birth or marriage certificates that are not authenticated.And examples are endless. Because their documents are complete, the CIC accepted their applications and charged their credit cards.Their applications are counted to belong to the quota. Later after some years, when all these documents are checked, these will be found to be not complying and therefore will be returned or outright disapproved. Would you say also these people steal the chance of those who submitted late who are more thorough and diligent but failed to include in the quota? But under your twisted and drunk logic, they are thieves! But they are not. These are honest people motivated by their lawful desire to have their parents come to Canada. They only committed sincere, plain, common mistakes. They intend not to deceive anybody or rob anybody of anything as you arrogantly accused them to be.

 

[screech339]

Did I strike a nerve with you? I don't have a lot of respect for those who refuses to follow the rules / guidelines in the hope of skipping the line.

Here is a scenario that I think reflects what people who do not meet 2010 LICOs but add 2013 paystubs.

A 18 year old guy walks into a liquor store. He sees the last bottle of 15 year old scotch on the shelf that restocks 5000 bottles once a year. He knows he has to wait until he is 19 next year. He takes it in the hope that the checkout counter doesn't noticed he is underage to buy it. He believes he deserved this bottle as much as everyone else. A 19 year old guy walks in and sees that all 5000 bottles of scotch is gone from the shelf. He is disappointed he knowing he has to wait another year. He goes pick up a bottle of wine and waits at the line at checkout. The 18 year old guy passes the scotch to the cashier. The cashier asked for ID and discovered that he is not old enough to buy it. The cashier takes the scotch away from the 18 year old and accidently dropped it. The bottle shattered on the floor, obviously that it can't be restocked. The 19 year old guy sees all this and gets angry that his potential bottle of scotch was lost.

Have I got this right? Is this a fair comparison? And you want me to apologize to this 18 year old? Notice that the 18 year old guy never made any crime like you made comment about. But he did undermine the process.

I still stick with my argument. I am for fairness for everyone, Canadians and PRs, in getting equal share in getting a spot in the 5000 cap who follow the rules that is laid out in front of them.


Screech,

Thanks for your reply. It is a good try.

I hope I get my point straight and clear this time. Very seldom a sober person gets to settle anything from arguing with a drunkard.

Applicants who submitted pay 2013 pay stubs,employer certificates, bank statements are trying to comply with the requirement of the CIC that failed to say categorically people must not submit 2013 income. They are not intending to violate any rule or law much less "steal" or deprive others of their chance to be included in the quota. In your example, their is deliberate attempt to violate the prohibition against selling liquors to minors. The ordinance is clear; and the way it is to be implemented as well as the corresponding penalties are commonly known.

In the case of PGP sponsorship program, applicants have the right to provide evidence they believe justify them to be considered. And CIC does not forbid anybody from doing that. If CIC sees the justification does not warrant approval, they deny and the application is returned. For you to accuse people of stealing or taking away something from others when they are just giving support and proof to their eligibility is uncalled for and reflective of absolute arrogance. As I have said nobody is being inconvenienced by what they did.

There are applicants who submitted papers with faked signatures. There are those who submitted NOAs complete for three years but are not meeting the income threshold. There are applicants who fill up the forms with gaps in the period of their employment or whereabouts. There are those who submitted birth or marriage certificates that are not authenticated.And examples are endless. Because their documents are complete, the CIC accepted their applications and charged their credit cards.Their applications are counted to belong to the quota. Later after some years, when all these documents are checked, these will be found to be not complying and therefore will be returned or outright disapproved. Would you say also these people steal the chance of those who submitted late who are more thorough and diligent but failed to include in the quota? But under your twisted and drunk logic, they are thieves! But they are not. These are honest people motivated by their lawful desire to have their parents come to Canada. They only committed sincere, plain, common mistakes. They intend not to deceive anybody or rob anybody of anything as you arrogantly accused them to be.

The example I provided is not a drunkard example like you like to to portray but it is a good example.

The 18 year old represent those not meeting 2010 LICOS but meet 2011 licos. The scotch represent the quote cap. The 19 year old represent those that meets 2010 licos along with 2011 and 2012. You are using the actual laws as an excuse to dismiss my example. I am using the guide as stated to qualify for 2014 applications to portray my point.

I wouldn't have any issues with those that tried to use the slight of hand to bend the rules if CIC actually reject applications that don't meet the lico up front before being added to the quote. Nor would I have any issue if CIC says they will keep processing until 5000 actual approved applications for moves to PR stage gets reached.

But from what we are seeing here so far, a completed application with NOAs that doesn't meet the requirements get added to the quote that doesn't get refilled.

So in the end, I could say 20% of the 5000 completed applications could get rejected due to not meeting LICOs or suspected signature forgery , despite submitting all required docs, in reality 4000 of the applications would move on. The 1000 shortage will not get refilled. Gone forever until next year.

If CIC follow a similar approach the US green card lotto whereby the first 55000 to get green card will get green card. Here in under the new gpg program, 5000 accepted quote will never be 100% accepted.

 

[Hishman]

The example I provided is not a drunkard example like you like to to portray but it is a good example.

The 18 year old represent those not meeting 2010 LICOS but meet 2011 licos. The scotch represent the quote cap. The 19 year old represent those that meets 2010 licos along with 2011 and 2012. You are using the actual laws as an excuse to dismiss my example. I am using the guide as stated to qualify for 2014 applications to portray my point.

I wouldn't have any issues with those that tried to use the slight of hand to bend the rules if CIC actually reject applications that don't meet the lico up front before being added to the quote. Nor would I have any issue if CIC says they will keep processing until 5000 actual approved applications for moves to PR stage gets reached.

But from what we are seeing here so far, a completed application with NOAs that doesn't meet the requirements get added to the quote that doesn't get refilled.

So in the end, I could say 20% of the 5000 completed applications could get rejected due to not meeting LICOs or suspected signature forgery , despite submitting all required docs, in reality 4000 of the applications would move on. The 1000 shortage will not get refilled. Gone forever until next year.

If CIC follow a similar approach the US green card lotto whereby the first 55000 to get green card will get green card. Here in under the new gpg program, 5000 accepted quote will never be 100% accepted.

Hi screech339 and Zidyay,

I think that it is clear that there is a disagreement between you folks, but i hardly think that there is any point in arguing about this on this forum. I understand the frustration, but this discussion does not help any of the other forum members.

With respect, i urge you to change the topic

ON THAT NOTE,

Do you think that the CC getting charged actually means anything? As in, do you think it is a confirmation that you are within the 5000 quota, or do you think CIC may be charging more CCs than 5000, and then refunding the money later?

 

[Rob_TO]

Do you think that the CC getting charged actually means anything? As in, do you think it is a confirmation that you are within the 5000 quota, or do you think CIC may be charging more CCs than 5000, and then refunding the money later?

Some members here had their application returned, and were NOT charged the fee. So I think it's safe to say if your credit card was charged, you are accepted in the 5000 cap.

Of course that doesn't guarantee you have qualified as sponsor, it just means you submitted all the required documents. If your NOAs for 2010, 11 and 12 don't meet the LICO amounts, your app has a very strong chance to get rejected sometime in 2015 or 2016 when they actually process stage 1.

 

[screech339]

Hi screech339 and Zidyay,

I think that it is clear that there is a disagreement between you folks, but i hardly think that there is any point in arguing about this on this forum. I understand the frustration, but this discussion does not help any of the other forum members.

With respect, i urge you to change the topic

ON THAT NOTE,

Do you think that the CC getting charged actually means anything? As in, do you think it is a confirmation that you are within the 5000 quota, or do you think CIC may be charging more CCs than 5000, and then refunding the money later?

I agree with you on the subject of disagreement. We just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You do raise a good point. Will CIC keep charging CCs up and beyond the 5000 cap and only the first 5000 that get approved that meets licos. That is something we have to wait over time. The general assumption on this thread is that those charged to credit card are added to the quote.

We really don't know what the 5000 cap really apply to. Does the 5000 cap only applies to 2nd stage? That would be the ideal situation as then 5000 cap would be almost 100%.

 

[PS_4_Parents_Sponsorship]

ON THAT NOTE,

Do you think that the CC getting charged actually means anything? As in, do you think it is a confirmation that you are within the 5000 quota, or do you think CIC may be charging more CCs than 5000, and then refunding the money later?

No one knows, we all assuming based on the information in CIC web. CIC says, they will only charge if your application is complete [we don't have a exact guide for completeness either...]

Also CIC don't want the hassle of refunding the money for 1000s of people, and that is the reason they didn't let us pay online.

All these lead us to believe those who got charged are within the CAP, buy only CIC can answer !! Lets hope... !!

 

[Hishman]

I agree with you on the subject of disagreement. We just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You do raise a good point. Will CIC keep charging CCs up and beyond the 5000 cap and only the first 5000 that get approved that meets licos. That is something we have to wait over time. The general assumption on this thread is that those charged to credit card are added to the quote.

We really don't know what the 5000 cap really apply to. Does the 5000 cap only applies to 2nd stage? That would be the ideal situation as then 5000 cap would be almost 100%.

Thank you both (Rob and Screech) for your replies.

I am not worried about the LICO limits for my own application. My 2010-2011-2012 NOA amount far exceed the requirements. Hopefully if my CC is charged, I'm good to go

 

[PS_4_Parents_Sponsorship]

We haven't heard from anyone scanned the signed forms being charged. Is there any folks out here got charged after sending scanned signatures or got the packs returned?

Simply I want to find that out to see whether the CIC call centre was giving the correct information for us who took extra hassle in getting signed copies via courier..

 

[canvis2006]

CIC Call Centre agents are themselves not even familiar or educated enough on the whole PGP programs. Maybe some of them.

They are only there for applications in progress (in Canada only).

 

[scorpion_ca]

This is actually good as we are helping CIC to reduce the backlog. If CIC returns 1,000 applications, they would make 1,000x75=$75,000 eventually. The more applications they will return, the better for everyone......reduce backlog & faster processing for other applications.

So in the end, I could say 20% of the 5000 completed applications could get rejected due to not meeting LICOs or suspected signature forgery , despite submitting all required docs, in reality 4000 of the applications would move on. The 1000 shortage will not get refilled. Gone forever until next year.

 

[canvis2006]

For that have had money taken from Credit Cards, I would assume CIC would need to send us a receipts soon?

the acknowledgement letter should have a receipt of some sort, which will also give a file number.

But the real acknowledgement would be the APPROVAL of sponsorship....

 

[screech339]

the acknowledgement letter should have a receipt of some sort, which will also give a file number.

But the real acknowledgement would be the APPROVAL of sponsorship....

The approval of sponsorship would be the AIP stage. There is an Acknowledge of Receipt called AOR. Does sponsor of PGP get this AOR, like the sponsor of spousal PR sponsorship?

 

[user828]

The approval of sponsorship would be the AIP stage. There is an Acknowledge of Receipt called AOR. Does sponsor of PGP get this AOR, like the sponsor of spousal PR sponsorship?

AIP is for spouse case only, AOR is just an acknowledgement that LVO or VO got the file, that's all - but does suggest that CIC-M has accepted them as sponsor ( but in some cases, they send the file anyways when the sponsor has checked "continue if refused )

AOR goes to the PA

Breakdown is
CIC -M sends letter to Sponsor that docs are OK and approved as sponsor
CIC -M sends letter suggesting where the file has gone ( LVO or CPP-O)
LVO or CPP-O sends AOR to PA
Then the process begins for PP/Meds ( some LVO and CPP-O request PP at last stage, LVOs like ND request at a early stage )

 

[nina.roy]

We haven't heard from anyone scanned the signed forms being charged. Is there any folks out here got charged after sending scanned signatures or got the packs returned?

Simply I want to find that out to see whether the CIC call centre was giving the correct information for us who took extra hassle in getting signed copies via courier..

I sent in scanned pages of forms and clearly highlighted (with a post-it note on each scanned page) that these were scanned pages and I will submit originals later. They accepted my application and my CC was charged on 13th Jan.